Why don't any 1.7 scope mounts have cant?

[teknikallysekure]

So, my scope mount is too low(1.5" and 62mm objective are too tight to the handguard to squeeze a scope cap on).


It seems very strange to me to the point of thinking I must be missing something that this is an uncommon set of parameters?

If you have a large Objective scope, you likely want a 1.7" centerline mount, and it's also safe to assume you're shooting long range and therefore will desire 20MOA cant).

However, this seems to be a really uncommon configuration for most mounts? Most 20moa cant mounts are 1.5" but when you look for 1.7" mounts that can accommodate such a scope none of them have 20MOA cant as an option.

Is there a reason for this? 62mm isn't that large of an objective is it?

 

[OREGUN]

It’s because traditionally something that high was designed to put an optic in front of a thermal imager and was thus designed with no cant. In the modern world, you might expect to see some that tall with cant. Maybe. The market for really tall scope mounts is still pretty small despite some of their advantages.

 

[teknikallysekure]

It’s because traditionally something that high was designed to put an optic in front of a thermal imager and was thus designed with no cant. In the modern world, you might expect to see some that talk with cant. Maybe.

With a 1.5" mount. Is the Steiner m7x 4-28x56 really that big compared to other scopes in this class? I haven't tried sniffing about on scope dimms but it seems to me like this would be atleast a semi common setup issue.

 

[teknikallysekure]

Maybe I'll just vie for a pair of rings instead of a mount seems like that may really be my option.

 

[OREGUN]

The flat top is part of the problem. On a bolt gun you’d have more clearance. 56 isn’t really huge. How badly do you need cant?

 

[teknikallysekure]

The flat top is part of the problem. On a bolt gun you’d have more clearance. 56 isn’t really huge. How badly do you need cant?

I think I can probably live without it so long as the zeroing process doesnt eat a bunch of my mils. 6.5CM and I will def be shooting 1k with it but the m7x itself has tons of travel(26 mils). I'm sure even with something slower I'll be well under 15 mils of adjustment to get to 1k.

Maybe thats the answer, most scopes with this large of objectives are also carrying so much elevation travel it's a non issue and I'm just paranoid.

I guess if I was shooting further than 1k I might start to need to try worry more, but I don't really intend to be pressing that far.

 

[teknikallysekure]

Well, do I have a choice really?

 

[OREGUN]

I think you’ll be fine without cant if you just can’t find one. A 140 going 2500 only needs 11 and some mils at 1000 at sea level.

 

[OREGUN]

Well, do I have a choice really?

You can put a riser underneath it.

 

[teknikallysekure]

Yeah maybe it doesn't exist because most people don't need it and that's what I was missing

 

[Old Man with Gun]

I've used a 20 MOA riser and Med rings with good results.

 

[buyobuyo]

You can put a riser underneath it.

This what I was going to suggest. Some quick Googling and low risers look to be in the 0.5-0.6" range and can be found with cant. This plus rings or mount to get to the height that the OP wants seems like the solution.

 

[teknikallysekure]

nd low risers look to be in the 0.5-0.6" range

This what I was going to suggest. Some quick Googling and low risers look to be in the 0.5-0.6" range and can be found with cant. This plus rings or mount to get to the height that the OP wants seems like the solution.

I appreciate these suggestions guys. I'm honestly a little averse to mounts ontop of mounts there's just something that doesn't sit right to me shimming or clapping together multiple components to do the job of a one piece.

 

[ma smith]

If you have a large Objective scope... it's also safe to assume you're shooting long range and therefore will desire 20MOA cant

Nowadays its 20-30moa and goes on the gun, not the mount. The zero-cant mounts then swap across all rifles, just fine.

 

[buyobuyo]

I appreciate these suggestions guys. I'm honestly a little averse to mounts ontop of mounts there's just something that doesn't sit right to me shimming or clapping together multiple components to do the job of a one piece.

Understandable. I'm trying pick an enclosed backup optic for a new gun, and a lot of options require adapters on adapters which isn't ideal.

 

[Jojo417]

Mehta caliber are you running and how cat are you trying to shoot? How much travel does your scope have with the current zero?

 

[teknikallysekure]

Mehta caliber are you running and how cat are you trying to shoot? How much travel does your scope have with the current zero?

dropped this up above 6.5CM shooting to 1k and highly unlikely further. 26Mils of travel in the scope, and it's probably sub 15 mils to 1k so it's likely a non issue.

 

[chevy_man]

dropped this up above 6.5CM shooting to 1k and highly unlikely further. 26Mils of travel in the scope, and it's probably sub 15 mils to 1k so it's likely a non issue.

15 mills gets me to 1425 yards, with a 147 at 2660.

Quit panicking and go shoot.

 

[ma smith]

dropped this up above 6.5CM shooting to 1k and highly unlikely further.

+1 Here's 140 hybrid 2,750 = 8-9 mils to 1000.

 

[Wade]

I'd just grind some off the bottom of the cap.

 

[jabonra]

That new arc airbrace has a 20 moa option but at 1.97

 

[OREGUN]

That new arc airbrace has a 20 moa option but at 1.97

Well hell yeah. That’s exactly what OP needs.

 

[Jojo417]

dropped this up above 6.5CM shooting to 1k and highly unlikely further. 26Mils of travel in the scope, and it's probably sub 15 mils to 1k so it's likely a non issue.

It shouldn’t be an issue at all. Even at 2500fps with 140’s he should still have enough elevation in the turrets